številka / volume 215-216
oktober / october 2018
letnik / anno XLVIII

Ljubljana izven centra
Ljubljana Outside the Centre
vsebina številke
table of contents
Jurij Kobe Uvodnik / Leader
Urbano suburbano
TEORIJA
Miha Dešman Zunaj centra
Pavel Gantar Suburbano kot izbira, ali kot usoda?
Vesna V. Godina Suburbano pri Slovencih
Martina Lipnik Problematika zakonodaje, ki dopušča “približni urbanizem” v občinah okoli Ljubljane
Uroš Lobnik Resuburbanizacija od mesta do suburbije in nazaj
PROJEKTI
Damjana Zaviršek Hudnik (So)bivanje na robu mesta: Pot dobrot – sprehajalna pot med mestom in vasjo
Srđan Nađ, Sara Aranel, mag. Urška Podlogar Kos Prenova stanovanjske soseske in skupnosti
Marko Klemen Spreminjajoče se podeželje kot priložnost za razvoj
Boštjan Bugarič Avtonomne urbane prakse kot odgovor investitorskem urbanizmu
PERSPEKTIVE_ BTC
Petra Hribar Moskovska ulica 17: stolpica za spreminjajoče se mesto nakupov
Katja Ivič Ameriška ulica 9
TENDENCE
Timotej Jevšenak Arhitektura in urbanizem med leti 1955 in 1985 v Celju
VIZIJE SO
Žiga Erjavec, Nina Kobal Vizije so 13 Ljubljana kot prestolnica NEIZVEDENO
FILOZOFIJA
Johann Joachim Winckelmann, prevedel Aleš Košar Pripombe o stavbeništvu starih templjev v Grigentu na Siciliji
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, prevedel Aleš Košar Filozofija umetnosti Arhitektura
uvodnik

Urbano – suburbano

Jurij Kobe

Pravimo, da se je civilizacija (ta beseda, ki nosi v sebi nekaj gospodovalnega!) razvila z razvojem urbanega. Kje se pravzaprav začne urbano? Kaj določa 'urbs'? So to le mesta, ki so lahko tudi po fizičnem obsegu zelo majhna? So, po drugi strani, zelo velika mesta na splošno še urbana? Ali naselja v oddaljenih civilizacijah tretjega sveta, ki jim rečemo 'vasi', niso urbane? Kaj je tisto, kar določa urbano: skupnost, delitev skupnih zadev, ki je višja od skupne paše, gostilne, župana, župnika in gasilcev!?

Slovenija je v velikem delu posejana z redko in razpršeno individualno zazidavo. Je k temu doprinesel razmah samograditeljstva, predvsem v drugi polovici našega socialističnega obdobja, v obdobju tako imenovanih črnih gradenj, grajenih praviloma na kmetijskih zemljiščih (staršev), ki so izgubila svoj osnovni namen in vrednost? Vse to se je dogajalo takrat, ko je ta oblika kljub obsežni družbeni gradnji predstavljala velik delež zadovoljevanja potreb po stanovanjih. Ko so se gradile velike hiše 'za več generacij'. Stari starši so čuvali vnuke svojih otrok, ki so delali v Nemčiji. In te hiše so danes iz različnih vzrokov seveda postale prevelike...

Ali še dlje nazaj: izvira to iz časov, ko so v mestih prebivali predvsem premožnejši, ki so bili v zgodovini vedno v manjšini, zvečine Nemci; Slovenci pa smo živeli predvsem v predmestjih ali na kmetih, na podeželju? In smo Slovenci mesto začeli graditi šele v 19. stoletju? Z izjemo popotresne Ljubljane, kar je bil pravzaprav dunajski projekt, smo zares mesta začeli graditi šele v času socializma.

Danes, ko bi pričakovali resnejši pristop k pravnemu redu tudi na področju urejanja prostora, se trend nadaljuje. V ruralnem svetu je postala privlačna graditev bolj luksuznih, po kvadraturi celo manjših hiš od predhodnih, a vendar z enako ideologijo umeščanja. Tja se iz mesta seli premožnejši, zvečine hitro obogateli sloj mestnega prebivalstva, ki počasi – zaradi okoliščin – tam začne živeti suburbano.

Prostor ruralnega, ki ga povezujemo s poljedelstvom, se tako spreminja v suburbano, kjer mnoge značilnosti prvega ostajajo v drugem – brez prave povezave.

To seveda povzroča degradacijo kulturne krajine, po drugi strani pa zahteva večanje potreb po zadovoljevanju individualne mobilnosti (štiri PM pred družinsko hišo), večanje površin namenjenih komunikacijam, razvejanost komunalnih vodov oziroma – kot začasno alternativo – množično uporabo zasebnih greznic, individualnih kurišč ... in torej povzroča še večjo obremenjenost okolja.

In kaj se zgodi, ko lastnik hiše z vrtom ostari, postane manj okreten in je potreben dnevne pomoči? Ko ne gre več le za vprašanja, kako od doma ali do trgovine, marveč tudi, kako naj drugi pridejo do tega doma ...

A ne gre le za fizično obliko poselitve: razpršenost pogojuje tudi način bivanja. Družabno in kulturno življenje je v prostorsko koncentriranih okoljih intenzivnejše kot v razpršenih. To pa pomeni razliko v družbeni orientiranosti. Na območjih z gostejšo naselitvijo se koncentrira družbeno angažirana zavest, medtem ko se v razpršenih območjih vse bolj usidra ožje lokalno usmerjena zavest.

Je sodobno siromašenje duha v obliki nacionalizmov, nestrpnosti, paravojaških druženj, odsev vse večje suburbanizacije sveta?

Je nekaj podobnega s paralelo narod–nacija? Če rečemo, da narod druži nekaj značilnosti, kot so jezik, teritorij, kultura..., nacijo tvori vse to in še višje skupne zadeve: skupna oblast v treh vejah (oblasti), ki to vsa skupnost priznava.

V časih, ko komunikacije nikakor še niso bile razvite v sodobnem smislu, smo predvidevali, da bo splošna kompjuterizacija ljudi povezovala na drugačnem nivoju, kot je to le teritorialno in bo vse pogostejša oblika dela delo na domu, ki ne zahteva fizičnega srečevanja. Danes trendi ne kažejo na večjo povezanost med ljudmi. Gre za površno povezanost s svetom, predvsem povezanost s svetom novic, za globalizacijo, ki ima tudi svojo drugosmer, smer medsebojnega ločevanja.

Prav tako se potrebe po premikanju niso zmanjšale...

Paradoksalno se podobno godi tudi v koncentriranih urbanih območjih z monofunkcionalnim programom. Kot bi velika območja nakupovalnih centrov generirala enoplasten način razmišljanja. Že izbor in način ponudbe zahteva razmišljanje predvsem o videzu, o površini. Tam se nekako ne prime ponudba s kulturno zahtevnejšo vsebino (knjigarna, knjižnica, gledališče, muzej, galerija ...). Obstajajo sicer poskusi vnašanja teh programov, ki pa se slej ko prej izjalovijo oziroma se počasi prilagodijo manj zahtevnim okusom. Bi k tem prizadevanjem pomagala umestitev stanovanj v ta območja, kar bi lahko pritegnilo tudi druge programe, ki jih zahteva stalno bivanje?

Nekaj podobnega velja tudi za turistična naselja, ki so poleti polna različne gostujoče kulture, v obdobjih zatišja pa živijo podobno, kot druga monofunkcionalna območja.

'Suburbano' nastopa tudi v sčasoma že zgoščeni zazidavi obrobij mest. To so območja, ki so bila pogosto v pogledu urbanističnega načrtovanja nekako zanemarjena in jih danes vidimo kot kaotična. Tu so mnogokrat grupirani različni programi od stanovanj do drobnih storitev in proizvodnih obratov, kar je sicer dobrodošlo, a prav zaradi svojih naključnih nastankov mnogokrat objekti s temi programi funkcionirajo kot otoki brez medsebojnih povezav in navezav na – pogosto tudi naključno, ostale odprte prostore. Tu se pojavljajo nove zgradbe, tudi družbenega značaja, ki se zaradi neprijaznega okolja obračajo same vase, kar ni v prid oblikovanju urbanega prostora...

leader

Urban – Suburban

Jurij Kobe

We say that the civilisation (this word which carries within it something hegemonic) developed with the development of the urban. Where does the urban actually start? What defines the "urbs"? Is it just about cities, which can be very small in terms of their physical size? And are, contrariwise, very large cities still urban at all? Are settlements in the remote civilisations of the Third World, which we call "villages", not urban? What is it that defines the urban: a community, the sharing of common matters that transcends the common pasture, tavern, mayor, the parish priest, and the fire brigade?

A large part of Slovenia is strewn with sparse and dispersed individual development. Was this brought about by the self-build in the latter half of our Socialist period, in the time of the so-called illegal construction, built mostly on (the parents') agricultural plots, which had lost their original purpose and value? All this took place when this approach, despite ample public housing development, represented a significant way of satisfying the need for housing. When houses were being built "for several generations". Grandparents looking after the grandchildren of their children who were working in Germany. And these houses have now, for different reasons, become too big.

Or, going further back: does this stem from the times when the cities were mostly inhabited by the rich, who were historically always a minority and for the most part German; while Slovenes lived mostly in the suburbs or on farms, in the countryside? Have we as Slovenes then only begun to build the city in the 19th century? With the exception of the post-quake Ljubljana, which was actually a project conceived in Vienna, we have only begun to build cities in earnest in the Socialist period.

Today, when a more serious approach to legal order would be expected also in the area of spatial planning, the trend continues. In the rural world, it has become popular to build more luxurious houses of somewhat smaller sizes than before, but with the same ideology of siting. The more affluent, mostly new-money urban population moves there from the city and, due to the circumstances, gradually begins to live a suburban life. The space of the rural, which we associate with agriculture, is changing into the suburban where many characteristics of the former remain in the latter without a real connection between the two.

Naturally, this is causing the degradation of the cultural landscape and, on the other hand, the rise in the demand for satisfying individual mobility (viz. four parking spaces in front of the family home), the increase in communications surfaces, the expansion of the sewerage network or, as a temporary alternative, mass use of individual sewage systems and domestic firing installations all causing even greater ecological strain. And what happens when the owner of the house with the garden gets old, becomes less mobile, and in need of daily elderly care? This is no longer the question of how to go from home or to the shops, but, among other things, also how to get to the home in question. But this is not only about the physical form of settlement: the dispersion also determines the way of living. The social and cultural life is more intensive in spatially condensed environments compared to the dispersed ones, which is reflected in the difference in social orientation. In areas with denser settlement, there is a concentration of socially-committed consciousness, while in the more disperse areas, a more locally-oriented one gains a foothold. Is the contemporary impoverishment of the spirit in the form of nationalisms, intolerance, and paramilitary association a reflection of the increasing suburbanisation of the world? Is there something similar in the parallel of a people vs. a nation? If we claim that a people unite through characteristics such as language, territory, or culture, the nation is made by all of the above, along with higher common matters: common power of all the three branches (of power), which is recognised by the entire community.

In times when communications were a far cry from the contemporary state of development, we assumed that the mass ownership of computers will connect people on a different plane to the territorial, and that working from home, which eliminates the need for physical interaction, will become increasingly common. Nowadays, the trends do not indicate greater connectedness between people. It is a superficial connection with the world, chiefly with the world of news, a globalisation which also embodies its opposite direction, the direction of mutual separation. On the same token, the need for mobility has not decreased.

Paradoxically, the experience in concentrated urban areas with a monofunctional programme has been much the same. It is as if large areas of shopping centres generated a singular way of thinking. Both what is on offer and the way it is offered channels the thinking chiefly towards appearance, towards the surface. The culturally more demanding content, such as a bookstore, a library, a theatre, a museum, or a gallery, somehow fails to gain traction there. There are attempts at including such programmes, but sooner or later they either fail or gradually adapt to the less discerning tastes. Would these endeavours be helped by introducing housing into these areas, which could then attract other programmes required by permanent living? Something similar is true also of tourist resorts, which in summer are full of various forms of visiting culture, but in the low season, the life is similar to that in other monofunctional areas.

The suburban appears also in developments on the outskirts of cities, which have through time become condensed. These areas were often somewhat neglected by the gaze of urban planning and are today perceived as chaotic. Different programmes, from housing to small-scale service and manufacturing, are grouped together there, which is welcome, but it is precisely because of their chance origins that the buildings with these programmes often function as islands, without interconnections to and involvement with other, often equally random open spaces. New buildings spring up there, including some with a social character, but due to the unstimulating environment, they tend to turn inwards, which is not beneficial to the shaping of an urban space.